BBCC, LLC v. The Community of Bishops Bay LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin addresses the parties’ motions in limine in a trademark and license-agreement dispute involving BBCC, LLC’s BISHOPS BAY marks and the defendant’s bumblebee logo. The court takes judicial notice of the trademark registrations, excludes or provisionally excludes several categories of evidence, denies exclusion of evidence concerning trademark symbols, and strikes the scheduled trial dates pending rescheduling.

Holdings

1. The court may take judicial notice that BBCC's nine service marks are registered and owned by BBCC, and may take judicial notice of their incontestable status, but registration does not conclusively establish that the marks are valid and enforceable when those matters remain disputed.
2. A party's deposition testimony admitting an adverse fact is generally an evidentiary admission that may be controverted or explained, not necessarily a binding judicial admission that withdraws the fact from contention.
3. The absence of proof of compensatory damages does not defeat BBCC's breach-of-license-agreement claim because Wisconsin law permits recovery of nominal damages without proof of actual damages.
4. Evidence concerning the relationship between Jeffrey and Sam Jacobsen and Jeffrey's prior litigation against Sam's estate was generally excluded as irrelevant, confusing, or wasteful, although minimal contextual evidence concerning BBCC's acquisition of the intellectual-property rights and its enforcement efforts could be allowed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should take judicial notice that BBCC's nine service marks are registered, owned by BBCC, and incontestable.
2. Whether evidence concerning the relationship between Jeffrey Jacobsen and Sam Jacobsen and Jeffrey's prior litigation against Sam's estate was relevant or otherwise admissible.
3. Whether Jeffrey Jacobsen's deposition testimony concerning other entities using “Bishops Bay” was a binding judicial admission or an evidentiary admission.
4. Whether evidence concerning failure to use trademark symbols was excludable because BBCC allegedly suffered no compensatory damages.
5. Whether evidence concerning trademark dilution, financial damage, and a preliminary USPTO office action should be excluded.
6. Whether the existing trial dates should be struck and reset.

Disposition

other